4 ms·

> WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselve

> WW 2 is the war that took the USA from an isolationist power to global policeman. The US was never isolationist. It's one of those lies that we tell ourselves to pretend we aren't an empire. If we were isolationists, we would be a 13 state nation. Our first vassal nation was japan and we got them in the 1850s. But of course, we'd never call them that since that's what empires do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Go read up on the spanish american war and the colonies we got from that ( also in the 1800s ). And of course wars to prevent freedom of the philippines, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... Go read about the Great White Fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_White_Fleet For an isolationist nation, we sure did get around. > Conversely it set the UK (and to a lesser extent, France) on the path of liberating their colonies. Path of "liberating"? The UK and France didn't liberate anything. The indians, vietnamese, etc all fought bloody wars to free themselves from their brutal colonial masters. Tens of millions of indians, vietnamese, algerians, sub-saharan africans, burmese, etc had to die to liberate themselves. India, vietnam, algeria, etc weren't given their freedom by the "gracious" brits, french, etc. The british, french, etc colonizers were never the good guys. > And the groundwork for a new international norm against wars of conquest. How convenient since the world had already been conquered by the winners huh? Not much left to conquer other than land dominated by the "winners". Also it wasn't anything new. The league of nations already laid the groundwork. Funnily enough, germany and japan weren't too fond of that since they had just begun their quest for conquest. > Yes, the same countries wound up staying in charge. But it transformed the world. The former negates the latter. If you could point out the fundamental ( paradigm shift ) that occurred because of ww2, I'm all ears. Instead of saying it transformed the world, point out the transformation.

mannykannot 7y ago
I am sure you will have a reply to all of the following (and I could probably come up with some arguments of my own, if I were so inclined), but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: 1. The rise of the USSR as a global actor. 2. The rise of communist China. 3. The demilitarization of Japan, and the ending of its colonial ambitions. 4. The development and use of nuclear weapons, transforming what it means to be a global actor. 5. The foundation of Israel, transforming the politics of the Middle East and beyond. 6. The rise of the dollar. 7. The effective end of Western European military competition. There is also something significant for not happening: 8. The USA exploiting its monopoly of nuclear weaponry beyond the defeat of Japan. I agree with you that colonialism was on its way out regardless, but WW2 and its immediate consequences may have accelerated it, arguably leading to 9. A redefinition of what expansionism means. As I don't think the 'mega wars' theory is any more the whole of history than the 'great men' theory, I do not want to exaggerate WW2's importance (and, furthermore, I consider WW2 in Europe to be a continuation of WW1), but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly (including of course, the fact that the tensions that precipitated the war were no longer in effect afterwards.)
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: You are confusing important happenings to transformational changes ( ie paradigm shifts ). Nothing you listed are transformation changes to the world order. The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2. Communist china rose within the ( american/anglo-american/western/international ) world order. Probably the most important geopolitic event in the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. But it wasn't transformational. It didn't cause a paradigm shift. The world order remained. > but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly Change happened within a western world order. It wasn't transformational to the world order. Lots of history happened after ww2. What didn't happen was a transformational change to the world order. Man landed on the moon. Didn't change the world order.
  - mannykannot 7y ago
    I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a transformation. For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." The second part of that statement is either irrelevant or factually incorrect, depending on whether you are referring to potentiality or actuality, but let me guess: when confronted with the evidence against it, you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change. Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing), downplaying the magnitude of transformation that did occur as a consequence of WW2, and your 'get out of jail' argument of simply denying that this or that was truly transformational. At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes.
    - dntbnmpls 7y ago
      > I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts require a significant fundamental systematic change. It mostly started out with kuhn describing scientific paradigm shifts, but can be used elsewhere. Here's one clue, paradigm shifts don't happen often. The fact that you listed 9 should be a clue that most or all of what you listed are not paradigm shifts. > For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." ... you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change. I was pointing out that soviet union existed before and after ww2 in pretty much the same position. Also, we are talking about the change of the global world order. You seem to be fixated on individual countries and are completing missing the point. > Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing) It's not a non-sequitur. I was just pointing out important events happened. But those important events don't change the international world order. Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc happened. Didn't change the international world order. > At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes. Once again, we are talking about transformation changes of the world order, not single nations. Since the "world order" is a fairly recent invention and hasn't changed, I'll give you localized historical examples. The ottoman turks conquest of byzantine empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople The mongol conquest of china, middle east, russia, etc which shook up the geopolitical eurasian order. The treaties of westphalia which created the sovereign nation-state. You know significant events which actually changed something. The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order. The same people running the world before and after. I think the confusion here is that you seem to be talking about changes with individual nations while I'm talking about the world order. The creation of israel, north/south korea, south sudan, etc are important to those nations, but didn't transform the world order. These nations all live within the established "western" world order. But if you feel different than you are entitled to it. The opening of china was an important event, but didn't cause a paradigm shift since they decided to work within the "western" world order. If china ever challenges the current world order and decides to create their own international system and does so successfully, then a significant world transformation would have happened. A world led by china with "chinese values" instead of "western values" would amount to a paradigm shift in the international world order. WW2 didn't cause a "transformation", it actually cemented and reinforced the pre-ww2 status quo. Once again in terms of the global world order, not individual nations.
btilly 7y ago
In the 1800s the US was indeed expansionist. But their view was that of Manifest Destiny - it was the USA's manifest destiny to expand and control the Western hemisphere. To that end the USA launched wars (eg against Mexico), fought against colonial powers, and so on. However it was also a defined sphere of influence. The USA was late to both WW 1 and 2 because what happened in Europe was widely felt to not be the USA's affair. Privately we armed one side, but we didn't fight. It was not until the Kaiser attempted to form an alliance with Mexico that the USA entered into WW 1. And not until Japan attacked did the USA enter WW 2. After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide. On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. After WW 2 they moved towards transferring power to local authorities. And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.html https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h... for verification.
- dntbnmpls 7y ago
  > it was the USA's manifest destiny to expand and control the Western hemisphere... However it was also a defined sphere of influence. China is in the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol Japan is in the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Is the philippines part of the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... > After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide. Simply not true. We proactively looked for opportunities before ww2. We even briefly invaded russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... > On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. They tried to put down independence movements after ww2 also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War > And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h.. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h.... for verification. Wow. Empty virtue signaling words. With such empty words, one wonders why so many colonized peoples had to die after ww2 to free themselves from their brutal colonizers? Seems like there are a lot of people defending the brutal colonizers. I wonder why?

mannykannot 7y ago

I am sure you will have a reply to all of the following (and I could probably come up with some arguments of my own, if I were so inclined), but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: 1. The rise of the USSR as a global actor. 2. The rise of communist China. 3. The demilitarization of Japan, and the ending of its colonial ambitions. 4. The development and use of nuclear weapons, transforming what it means to be a global actor. 5. The foundation of Israel, transforming the politics of the Middle East and beyond. 6. The rise of the dollar. 7. The effective end of Western European military competition. There is also something significant for not happening: 8. The USA exploiting its monopoly of nuclear weaponry beyond the defeat of Japan. I agree with you that colonialism was on its way out regardless, but WW2 and its immediate consequences may have accelerated it, arguably leading to 9. A redefinition of what expansionism means. As I don't think the 'mega wars' theory is any more the whole of history than the 'great men' theory, I do not want to exaggerate WW2's importance (and, furthermore, I consider WW2 in Europe to be a continuation of WW1), but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly (including of course, the fact that the tensions that precipitated the war were no longer in effect afterwards.)

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> but here's a few more arguably transformational consequences: You are confusing important happenings to transformational changes ( ie paradigm shifts ). Nothing you listed are transformation changes to the world order. The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2. Communist china rose within the ( american/anglo-american/western/international ) world order. Probably the most important geopolitic event in the 20th century was the collapse of the soviet union. But it wasn't transformational. It didn't cause a paradigm shift. The world order remained. > but it seems inarguable that things changed quite significantly Change happened within a western world order. It wasn't transformational to the world order. Lots of history happened after ww2. What didn't happen was a transformational change to the world order. Man landed on the moon. Didn't change the world order.
- mannykannot 7y ago
  I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a transformation. For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." The second part of that statement is either irrelevant or factually incorrect, depending on whether you are referring to potentiality or actuality, but let me guess: when confronted with the evidence against it, you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change. Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing), downplaying the magnitude of transformation that did occur as a consequence of WW2, and your 'get out of jail' argument of simply denying that this or that was truly transformational. At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes.
  - dntbnmpls 7y ago
    > I don't believe I am confusing important happenings to transformational changes; rather, I think you are simply denying that there was a paradigm shift. Paradigm shifts require a significant fundamental systematic change. It mostly started out with kuhn describing scientific paradigm shifts, but can be used elsewhere. Here's one clue, paradigm shifts don't happen often. The fact that you listed 9 should be a clue that most or all of what you listed are not paradigm shifts. > For example, you write "The soviet union existed before ww2 and they were a dominant force before ww2." ... you will fall back on the position that what actually happened did not amount to a transformational change. I was pointing out that soviet union existed before and after ww2 in pretty much the same position. Also, we are talking about the change of the global world order. You seem to be fixated on individual countries and are completing missing the point. > Your argument so far has been a combination of non-sequiturs (such as mentioning the moon landing) It's not a non-sequitur. I was just pointing out important events happened. But those important events don't change the international world order. Vietnam War, Iraq War, etc happened. Didn't change the international world order. > At this point, you owe us some examples of truly transformational changes. Once again, we are talking about transformation changes of the world order, not single nations. Since the "world order" is a fairly recent invention and hasn't changed, I'll give you localized historical examples. The ottoman turks conquest of byzantine empire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_Constantinople The mongol conquest of china, middle east, russia, etc which shook up the geopolitical eurasian order. The treaties of westphalia which created the sovereign nation-state. You know significant events which actually changed something. The world before ww2 was a "western" world order. The world after ww2 was a "western" world order. The same people running the world before and after. I think the confusion here is that you seem to be talking about changes with individual nations while I'm talking about the world order. The creation of israel, north/south korea, south sudan, etc are important to those nations, but didn't transform the world order. These nations all live within the established "western" world order. But if you feel different than you are entitled to it. The opening of china was an important event, but didn't cause a paradigm shift since they decided to work within the "western" world order. If china ever challenges the current world order and decides to create their own international system and does so successfully, then a significant world transformation would have happened. A world led by china with "chinese values" instead of "western values" would amount to a paradigm shift in the international world order. WW2 didn't cause a "transformation", it actually cemented and reinforced the pre-ww2 status quo. Once again in terms of the global world order, not individual nations.

btilly 7y ago

In the 1800s the US was indeed expansionist. But their view was that of Manifest Destiny - it was the USA's manifest destiny to expand and control the Western hemisphere. To that end the USA launched wars (eg against Mexico), fought against colonial powers, and so on. However it was also a defined sphere of influence. The USA was late to both WW 1 and 2 because what happened in Europe was widely felt to not be the USA's affair. Privately we armed one side, but we didn't fight. It was not until the Kaiser attempted to form an alliance with Mexico that the USA entered into WW 1. And not until Japan attacked did the USA enter WW 2. After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide. On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. After WW 2 they moved towards transferring power to local authorities. And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.html https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h... for verification.

dntbnmpls 7y ago
> it was the USA's manifest destiny to expand and control the Western hemisphere... However it was also a defined sphere of influence. China is in the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Patrol Japan is in the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition Is the philippines part of the western hemisphere? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... > After WW 2, the USA proactively looked for opportunities to engage world wide. Simply not true. We proactively looked for opportunities before ww2. We even briefly invaded russia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine%E2%80%93American_Wa... > On the colonies, all of the European powers had put down rebellions repeatedly. They tried to put down independence movements after ww2 also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_National_Revolution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War > And their desire to do this was codified in the UN charter. See https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h.. https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xi/index.h.... for verification. Wow. Empty virtue signaling words. With such empty words, one wonders why so many colonized peoples had to die after ww2 to free themselves from their brutal colonizers? Seems like there are a lot of people defending the brutal colonizers. I wonder why?